4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #88

[ilovewings]

Depends.

There’s a clear chain of evidence from the crime scene to the local lab dna (where it’s pulled off the sheath and stored digitally) into CODIS (for no hit), and eventually matching BKs cheek.

How does what happened to the sheath after it left the lab affect the sample they just pulled? Does it alter the 1s and 0s representation of BKs SUPER unique DNA stored inside of a computer suddenly when ortham receives it?

The sample that matched BK has absolutely NOTHING to do with the Ortham labs sample nor the subsequent process(es).

If a judge tossed out the local dna because there was something funky about the genealogy process…travesty of justice IMO. Which is exactly what the defense wants.

“he did it. but you caught him with a non-illegal shortcut. not guilty” - the defense…?

In their dreams

 

[jepop]

Technically correct I suppose since the gag order was in place after he was swabbed. But I'm curious if you think AT is fighting so hard because his dna isn't a match?

jmo

The P's protective order motion/reply mention BK's buccal swab, and state it was a match to the male single source forensic sample extracted from the sheath Imo. I agree that AT isn't attacking this direct match at all. Looking for procedural technicalities (IGG) and mounting "what if" scenarios only.Moo

 

[Cool Cats]

Othram - General Discussion - #2

Well done, y'all! Justice for Terence Paquette! VERDICT: An Orange County Jury has found Kenneth Stough Jr. guilty of murder and he has been sentenced to life in prison. In February 1996, Terence Paquette was stabbed more than 70 times and found in the bathroom of the Lil' Champ convenience...

www.websleuths.com

[IMG alt="othram"]https://www.websleuths.com/forums/data/avatars/m/264/264893.jpg?1678392928[/IMG]

othram - Verified Owner of Othram Inc/DNA Expert​

Joined Apr 7, 2020

Trying to stay up to date on what Othram is up to? Worry not, we have a few ways for you to stay connected:

1. This Websleuths thread
2. The DNASolves realtime newsfeed: Latest Cases.
3. The DNASolves Advocates Facebook group: DNASolves Advocates | Facebook.

Stay tuned this week for more updates!

 

[jepop]

Depends.

There’s a clear chain of evidence from the crime scene to the local lab dna (where it’s pulled off the sheath and stored digitally) into CODIS (for no hit), and eventually matching BKs cheek.

How does what happened to the sheath after it left the lab affect the sample they just pulled? Does it alter the 1s and 0s representation of BKs SUPER unique DNA stored inside of a computer suddenly when ortham receives it?

The sample that matched BK has absolutely NOTHING to do with the Ortham labs sample nor the subsequent process(es).

If a judge tossed out the local dna because there was something funky about the genealogy process…travesty of justice IMO. Which is exactly what the defense wants.

“he did it. but you caught him with a non-illegal shortcut. not guilty” - the defense…?

I agree, there's no technicality option for dna to be chucked on the basis of anything the fbi and/or private lab did re the IGG process. Two separate things. As you say that would be a travesty of justice, Imo. The D are grasping if this is their intent with motions related to the IGG. Moo

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

No one asked me or my family members if we wanted to opt-in to anything when we did 23 and me.

Not sure what this even means.

Ortham should only be running general public DNA that is legal to run which I assume they do.

So I don't see the problem the defense is trying to manufacture. I'm going to research it.

I've done 23andme and Ancestry and both of them definitely ask if you want to opt in or out of a few things - although I can't remember what exactly there's most certainly some options about consenting to sharing your DNA profile and whether you agree for it to be attached to your personal data.

This is such a controversial issue anyway and it's well worth watching the critical youtube vids on 'why you shouldn't get your DNA tested' for ideas as to what arising problems in the future could be.

 

[NextSprint]

AT's latest motion is the clearest yet of hers.

"The transcript provided from the Judge Whitney does little to instruct this court about what should be decided. This court has a different question – Mr. Kohberger requests materials and analysis not a database. These materials are required by the DOJ to be retained for use in judicial proceedings. This Court has the benefit of understanding the process and the materials that were created in this identification of Mr. Kohberber by the state and its agents. Mr. Kohberger respectfully requests the Court Order the state to disclose the materials."

(Bolded by me for emphasis)

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/090123-Response-to-States-Notice-of-Intent-Not-to-Cross-Examine-Defense.pdf

I said this when the Dalrymple case was cited by the Prosecution; it makes no sense to cite it and shows either a lack of understanding of the issues being contested, or just a slap-dash approach by the P. JMO of course. It may backfire on them.

 

[girlhasnoname]

And it is unfair and misleading the way AT tried to spin it in court---claiming the FBI was harassing a witness for nefarious purposes. Then people ran with it, even on here, implying Thompson put the FBI up to it to intimidate a witness.

Those are the kinds of things that bother me about the way this defense team is working. A lot of smoke and mirrors and attempts at deflection and distortion, IMO.

The FBI had valid reasons to speak to that DNA expert after she claimed in court that other employees were acting illegally during LE investigations and she had knowledge about the circumstances. The FBI would be shirking their duties by not interviewing her. JMO

Again, another attempt by AT to try her case in the media with these inflammatory Motions and comments.

MOO

 

[m00c0w]

AT's latest motion is the clearest yet of hers.

"The transcript provided from the Judge Whitney does little to instruct this court about what should be decided. This court has a different question – Mr. Kohberger requests materials and analysis not a database. These materials are required by the DOJ to be retained for use in judicial proceedings. This Court has the benefit of understanding the process and the materials that were created in this identification of Mr. Kohberber by the state and its agents. Mr. Kohberger respectfully requests the Court Order the state to disclose the materials."

(Bolded by me for emphasis)

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/090123-Response-to-States-Notice-of-Intent-Not-to-Cross-Examine-Defense.pdf

I said this when the Dalrymple case was cited by the Prosecution; it makes no sense to cite it and shows either a lack of understanding of the issues being contested, or just a slap-dash approach by the P. JMO of course. It may backfire on them.

Why do you think it makes no sense to cite that case? The court ruled that they were not going to compel the prosecution to chase down the FBI and demand their records. If that’s not relevant to the state’s case, then nothing will ever be.

JMO

 

[Boxer]

AT's latest motion is the clearest yet of hers.

"The transcript provided from the Judge Whitney does little to instruct this court about what should be decided. This court has a different question – Mr. Kohberger requests materials and analysis not a database. These materials are required by the DOJ to be retained for use in judicial proceedings. This Court has the benefit of understanding the process and the materials that were created in this identification of Mr. Kohberber by the state and its agents. Mr. Kohberger respectfully requests the Court Order the state to disclose the materials."

(Bolded by me for emphasis)

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/090123-Response-to-States-Notice-of-Intent-Not-to-Cross-Examine-Defense.pdf

I said this when the Dalrymple case was cited by the Prosecution; it makes no sense to cite it and shows either a lack of understanding of the issues being contested, or just a slap-dash approach by the P. JMO of course. It may backfire on them.

What specific materials and analysis do you say she is requesting?

 

[10ofRods]

No one asked me or my family members if we wanted to opt-in to anything when we did 23 and me.

Not sure what this even means.

Ortham should only be running general public DNA that is legal to run which I assume they do.

So I don't see the problem the defense is trying to manufacture. I'm going to research it.

23andme is an automatic opt-OUT site.

Bolded just because it's so important. 23andme will not cooperate with LE except if directly ordered (via subpoena) to turn over information. As I understand it, 23andme then goes to court and attempts to quash the subpoena, because theirs is not a forensic database. Last time I checked, I believe that 23andme has never been compelled to turn over any data - but I didn't check today, more like a year ago. Someone just posted the link to their transparency page.

Ancestry.com is also an automatic opt-OUT site, but has had more subpoenas (bigger number of users?) than 23andme, and has turned over information (after a judge ordered it via subpoena) a handful of times.

GEDMatch, Parabon, Othram and others are automatic OPT-IN databases designed for open or LE use (GedMatch allows anyone to search through their database after uploading a sample to match).

That's why none of us had to opt-Out for 23andme - we are automatically "don't show our results to LE" when we send in our saliva. Now that I have my results, I can send them to any other database or service or agency that I wish.

HTH. I can't quite wrap my head around what the Defense is actually claiming or asking. I feel as if I have the right to my own DNA results and to then upload them to Othram or any other service of my choosing, under conditions of my own choosing.

What a person should *not* do is leave their DNA on something at a crime scene. There is no opting out (of having that DNA found or studied). Or, leave their DNA in the trash (as Kohberger's dad did).

All of this has made me ponder whether, in a few years, we will have legal genetic experts who can testify as to whether the DNA at the scene contains (for example) any of the known genes for antisocial behavior - or other conditions that affect behavior. It will be scientifically possible...

IMO.

 

[Sillybilly]

Please move on over to Thread #89.

This thread is now closed.